memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Nominations with objections Ghosts This is a self-nomination of sorts. I wrote it in the Voyager Comics page, and CaptMike moved it to its own (per the discussion on the comics talk page). We've discussed having a novel or comic as a featured article before, and I think this is the one to use. Jaz talk 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Votes *'Support' -- (from nomination) Jaz talk *'Support' -- i was waiting until someone found a novel or comic they liked enough to nominate before i threw any into the ring, this looks like a good one. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose' -- (see below) -- Aholland Discussion *'Oppose' -- This article has obviously taken a lot of time and effort to write. But as an article it does not analyze a subject, it does not pull together as a topic information from numerous sources, and it does not organize itself around a theme. Due to its subject matter - a summary - it is little more than a straightforward summary. The suggested criteria for featured status is, I think, missing in that it did not require a lot of research or citations, and its structure derives solely from a narrative copy of the subject matter rather than a considered effort to organize disorganized information. At heart, I do not believe a featured article should be one that can be written solely by describing "what happens next" and adds little more to that than links. With all due respect to Jaz, and whose article is quite well written (no small feat unto itself), I do not think that any comic book summary can rise to a featured article for the above reasons. Now, an overview of an entire series of comics, or comparisons among them, or a feature on a special artist, or even an examination of differences between the comics and the shows - that could require the degree of research a featured article should - I think - have. But not this one, I'm afraid. Aholland 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC) * If you read the featured article criteria you will notice that dislike of the subject matter is not a legitimate objection - if it covers the topic and is well written - as good as it can get for that topic - it should be featured. Based on this, I invite you to withdraw your objection. Jaz talk 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::I did read the featured article criteria. And I have no objection to the subject matter; it is a very nice summary of the comic. I am not trying to criticize the work, so please don't take it personally. It really is very nicely done. But going through the criteria: ::*Well-written. It includes both style (very good) and content. It is the content that does not work for me. However well-worded it is, it is still a page by page, panel by panel description of someone else's story. ::*Close to "perfect article". This is where it doesn't work for me. A perfect article has it own criteria. One criterion is that it be well-documented. That implies more than a single citation (the one issue) to my mind, and does not simply include multiple links. Another is that it thoroughly cover all aspects of the subject. There was virtually nothing about the artists, the writers, how it fit into the Voyager comics, how it fit into the Voyager series, or its successes and failures from any perspective. Also, a "perfect" article "includes contributions from many members. The best articles contain knowledge that has been submitted by a wide range of fans from all across the world, with different perspectives on the material." The subject matter here doesn't lend itself very well to multiple perspectives, which leads me to conclude that the subject matter (that content thing again) is lacking. ::*It is comprehensive, accurate, stable and undisputed. ::It is the lack of original content, the lack of any substantive discussion of anything outside the one issue, and the lack of complexity that - in my opinion - make it not meet the criteria as stated in Memory Alpha. Again, I am not trying to say this is a "bad" article; quite the opposite. I just don't think it should be a "featured" article. So I do not choose to withdraw my vote at this time. I'm sorry. Aholland 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC) * I see what your trying to say, but I feel this argument would be more suited for the Feature Article Criteria discussion as I feel it meets criteria. Nevertheless, I undertand your point, and I am going to start a peer review on it. On a side note, I really think it would be great to have a novel or comic featured - this one or another. It's something we've never done before and would be great step forward. There is also precedent for articles that simply explain all aspects of an offically liscenced works being featured, Star Trek: Armada and Star Trek: Armada II. Jaz talk 01:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) **I'm glad you understand. Is there some comic-related article that is, perhaps, a general survey of a series of them? Or something that discusses major, interesting, differences between the series and the comics? Ditto novels? That is - to my mind - the sort of article that should potentially get featured status if well researched, well organized, and whose authors share your writing skills. I, personally, would like to see a comic or book article get featured status; the meta-universe articles are interesting too! Aholland 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) * Until quite recently, all comics in the same series were grouped together. Following a discussion of the comics talk page, CaptMike began moving them to seperate page, which seems to be neccessary given the lenght of some comics (see Trekkers for another long comic article, which incidentally, I also wrote). Unfortunatly, unlike episodes or movies there is next to no background information available, and most of the artist also have a low profile. Still, I think once a comic has reached its peak, the best it can get, I believe it should be featured. I think this discussion should be about whether or not Ghosts has reached its full potential. If so, I believe it should be featured. Jaz talk 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::Wow, there's a lot of text here! I might need some of this dumbed down for a layman! I think expanding on the "characters" and "references" sections could improve this article, with more detailed descriptions of the various characters (what rank were they? division color of their uniforms? which ship was each from? ) I'm not sure what the objection is about the article not being "analytical" enough -- there are lots of featured articles about episodes which have (relatively) low amounts of background info, incomplete references lists, and no analysis save for a very long summary -- so I'm not sure what the objection is over -- unless you are saying that the list of currently featured episodes also aren't eligible. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :::I think I would prefer to deal with articles as they are suggested here in future rather than comment on ones past or hypothetical ones. I stand by my comments on Ghosts, though: nice article, but doesn't meet "feature" standards. (In my opinion, and with respect for Jaz's writing abilities.) Aholland 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :::And I'm sorry, but I forgot to address the note that my objection lacked substance. I believe I have pointed out where, in the Memory Alpha practices, this article does not meet the standards set out for a featured article. If there is something else that I need to say, or a preferred format to otherwise summarize my objections, please let me know. In terms of what could fix the article, more summations of the thing (uniform colors, for example) is not what I think would most help. Notations of the almost plagiaristic similarities between the story and "Yesterday's Enterprise", greater notations of differences between the way things looked or acted in the comic versus the show, something on the creative staff perhaps, how (and whether) this fits in with the Voyager sequence of events - in other words, many more things that go beyond simply describing the actions and dialogue in the story. That's what could raise this article up from a mere summation to an example of the best research, writing, and analysis that Memory Alpha has to offer. Aholland 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::I don't -- nitpicks of character differences is very encyclopedic, it certainly shouldn't be a criteria for FA. Jaz talk 03:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :::I'd also log on to MA and read about registry numbers, obscure uniform colors and rank insignia details -- are you objecting to my suggested improvements because you "don't like" the subject matter? -- Captain M.K.B. 03:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::You may have missed it above, but as I said I have no objections whatsoever to the subject matter. I have no objections to the suggested additions you would like to see, either. My point was that those additions would not, in my opinion, alter the article's basic suitability for featured status. It should be more than - essentially - a recap to be granted that honor. Aholland 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :I'm not sure what it is you want. This is a wiki, so information on specific artists should be on their pages (in some cases, when those pages are made). I've added some background, and CaptMike and I have re-vamped the references and characters. I'm not really sure what else could possibly be done that would be encyclopedic. :Also, take a look at some other feauted articles. I mentioned the armada games; neither of them have any background, just a very detailed summary, yet both are featured. Jaz talk 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::Other articles notwithstanding, I really think that I've explained myself enough as above. I also think I've spilt enough ink over what is, basically, an opinion that I am standing by for now. Let's give someone else a chance to say something about it. :) Aholland 12:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :Just so you know, there is now are now strong sections on Background and Artwork. Jaz talk 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Dukat's Bird-of-Prey The user did quite a good job with this. Thorough, accurate with good images. -- Rebel Strike 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) * Support. I think it's a well written article. I like it. :) Sloan47 03:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC) * Support. There was just the bit about what the name of the ship is, but I think that's been resolved now. Plenty of pictures and information. Zsingaya 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose' while the naming issue is still being discussed. Once that is resolved, the article should be edited accordingly to either use the name throughout or not at all, not the mishmash of "Naprem" and "Dukat's Bird-of-Prey" that exists now. -- Cid Highwind 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) **'Neutral' I withdraw my support for the time-being, as Cid said, the naming issue is still unresolved, and there appears to be a little editing war going on between Vedek and Shran. Get it sorted, guys! Zsingaya 16:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - a nice article -- When it rains... it pours 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - A good article with good content and visuals. -- Excelsior 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) *For the record, the naming issue has been resolved, and I vote in support of this article. There's a lotta unsightly red links in it, but we can take care of those later. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. The "Fighting the Klingons" section has only one sentace. This should either be expanded or merged into another section. Jaz talk | novels 05:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)